May not contain “blind links”. If you want to link to an article about what you’d like to discuss, copy the article to the discussion or write your own summary or thoughts on the matter in your post.

97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive No Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

Only three out of every 100 rapists will ever spend even a single day in prison, according to a new analysis by RAINN of Justice Department data. The other 97 will walk free, facing no consequences for the violent felony they have committed. Because rapists tend to be serial criminals, this leaves communities across the nation at risk of predators.

While the percentage of rapes reported to police has risen in recent years, a majority — 54% — still are not reported, according to the Justice Department. But increasing reporting alone won't solve the problem: only about one out of four reported rapes leads to an arrest, and only about one out of four arrests leads to a felony conviction and incarceration.

RAINN's new analysis is based on the most recent available Justice Department data, using an average of the five most recent years when available. Based on older data, RAINN had previously estimated that about 6% of rapists ultimately go to prison for their crime.

"This staggering statistic sends a clear message to offenders that they can commit this horrible crime and get away with it. The single most important thing we can do to prevent rape is to put more rapists in prison," notes Scott Berkowitz, RAINN's president and founder. "That's why we have made it a priority to pass the SAFER Act and eliminate the backlog of untested DNA evidence from open rape cases." [/admin edit]

Replies to This Discussion

What exactly are do they classify as rape in this study? It is just that sleeping with someone who is intoxicated in any way( not even passed out drunk or deliriously high) is technically rape, even if both parties gave consent at the time . Meaning the vast majority of sexually active teens (both male and female) can be classed as rapists. Probably the vast majority of adults also.

Now please do not think i am supporting rapists in anyway, but the term has been extremely watered down. And i would like to know exactly what these statistics show.

This did really bother me though and i have no clue why this state of affairs exist.

"Why We Need It: There’s a huge backlog of DNA evidence from unsolved rape cases that has never been sent to the lab for analysis. Until we test this evidence and identify the rapists, those criminals remain free to attack more victims." Support the SAFER Act

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

Normally "explicit" means verbal or contractual, not merely understood. If that's the case then I married my rape victim. We got together the first time we had sex, had a couple glasses of wine, and sex happened, I didn't ask her if she wanted me to stick my penis in her vagina but she didn't resist, either. She certainly didn't give explicit verbal consent or sign a sexual contract.

This is the way most sex happens, I'd wager, without explicit consent. In fact, I bet you've had sex without giving explicit consent, haven't you?

This is what's wrong with statistics like these proffered by so-called "advocate" (read haters) groups. Their standard of what a rape is is low enough so that they can make outrageous claims. In fact, standards can be comically low such that if a man and woman get drunk and then they have sex, the male is a rapist. If I were a woman, I'd find being treated like the less responsible party in such a situation pretty insulting.

Now, a relevant statistic would tell us how many convicted rapists do time. I bet most of them do.

I personally strongly believe in consent. There is a huge difference between being drunk and being passed out. Many rape victims do not resists because they are too afraid of resisting. They will not say no, because they fear putting their security at a greater risk by resisting. Does this make it any less rape?

Also what's the difference between rape under date rape drugs and rape under intoxication?

I agree that their is a huge difference between being drunk and being passed out. But that way the law is written it does not matter how drunk she is in the slightest. Even if she is only slightly intoxicated she is technically unable to give her informed consent no matter what she said or how eager she was at the time.

Even if she was all for it the night before after having two beers, she can wake up the next morning regretting what she did( possibly for religious reasons , the whole sex before marriage thing) and then charge him with rape.

Now i can completely agree that it is rape if she is passed out drunk or is so intoxicated she has no clue what is happening. But the law does not distinguish between those states and one where she had a few puffs on a cannabis joint.

"Also what's the difference between rape under date rape drugs and rape under intoxication? "

Rape is rape no matter the circumstance. But consensual sex is also legally classified as rape if she was even the slightest bit intoxicated.

Even if she is only slightly intoxicated she is technically unable to give her informed consent no matter what she said or how eager she was at the time.

I think you mean simple consent. "Informed consent" applies in situations like where minors are taken advantage of sexually because they really don't understand what is happening and/or its full implications.

Anyway by the same sort of logic, can we say that the male technically can form legal intent?

Why wouldn't the logic apply to both of them?

Or is this one of those areas where we are to treat women as childish relative to men? I would think women would find that insulting.

The issue of consent is paramount. On the basis that you speak of, if a person gets raped while they are drunk, a rapist could get away with it claiming that the victim was "not drunk enough". It's a problem on both sides. I understand that the slightest bit intoxicated is a bit extreme. However, how can we objectively measure consent and intoxication? If I am not sober enough to drive, then how am I sober enough to consent? But regardless, by the time the person comes to report it, the alcohol would have worn off... be mindful that a person could be too afraid to speak for A LONG TIME.

I also feel that you are taking that general bias and the historical misogynist perspective which always looks at a rape victim as some "scheming evil slut (and whore with a queer/trans person)" who makes business or derives evil pleasure out of convicting people of rape. The assumption is often, when looking at a rape victim, that they could be lying. You have no idea what affect this has on people who do get raped, or who think that they can't talk about their situation because they will be first perceived as liars. The truth is that MOST people do not want to even TALK about it... let alone go to the police. This is not the only study that was done. There are countless other studies with different measuring standards. The number of people who do not speak about it is ridiculous. It is often the most marginalized people in a society who are raped and cannot talk about it. I'm sure that there are some people out there who really are fucked up and enjoy convicting people for rape when it didn't happen, whether out of religion or something else. But the other reality is that guilt can take place the moment they say yes, and they may change their mind, but the other person who turns from a consented sex partner to a rapist just won't have it. It is even less likely that a person who feels guilt for engaging in sex based on religion would raise a case against their sexual partner or rapist, in fear of their religious community... in fear of being shunned or called the slut. So no, the scenario which you have built-in to your argument is not necessarily true. If you would bring me a scholarly peer-reviewed study supporting that scenario or that perspective, I will reconsider.

The truth is that MOST people do not want to even TALK about it... let alone go to the police.

That's true about rape victims. It's also true that most people don't talk about sex before they do it, much less go into some sort of back and forth discussion whereby consent is explicitly established.\

I think most of the women I've known are romantics and that sort of discussion is hard to make romantic.

Consent is not necessarily a conversation or discussion, you simply ask the person before you do the thing that you are about to do whether or not they want it (and you make sure that they feel completely safe and without pressure answering your question).

On talking about sex...well why don't they? And again, not just speaking about women and not just speaking about heterosexual couples.

Speaking about sex is such a great way to solve a lot of problems in the bedroom. A lot of women according to many studies do not feel satisfied in bed... and the problem according to a few studies that i've read is about couples not talking in the bedroom (although many of these studies look at cisgendered women only... but the lgbtq' community is outspoken about this same issue). They do not tell their partners what they do and do not like. Mostly this is because of stigma (including the misogynist idea that women don't have needs and that their orgasm is unimportant). Talking is also great for "non-conventional" couples. Remember not all women have vaginas and not all men have penises. Our entire cultural understanding of sex and our cultural practice of sex is so archaic. It really needs to change. Talking about sex really can be sexy (from my personal experience as a cisgender woman). It can also make me feel safe and comfortable and in control and confident. All these things are important in sex. And not just for cisgendered women or even just women.

Perhaps people could solve a lot of problems by doing all kinds of things, but what to do, then, about the fact that they don't find talking about it in a serious way a positive addition to the presexual experience?

I suspect a lot of women still want the traditional role of having a kiss stolen followed by some perfunctory pro forma protests that they don't really mean. If the male took these protests seriously, it might even spoil the situation for these women.

Certainly, that's not the way you view it, but I guarantee there are plenty such women out there.

Do you have evidence that proves that "a lot" of women want the traditional role? And by women, I do not only mean cis gendered women. Or is this just your assumption about what women want?

Yes, some women also like being slapped around and chocked in sex. That does not mean that you can do it to every woman (or man or queer folk) just because some like it... especially NOT without consent.

Again, your argument is not very strong there. Also, you continue to view sex in a heterosexual perspective, and that's not how sex always happens.

Not to mention, this sort of thing is socialized in women from our loverly misogynistic culture (which blatantly promotes rape and wins an oscar for it). Lots of women love their physical abusers to death, just because women love them, that does not make it okay. Some porn stars actually come out and say they love rape, that still does not make it okay. Lots of people love sick things, that does not justify doing sick things to people.

If a woman does prefer such things, it should be communicated between the partners before hand and discussed. Then the "stolen kiss" kind of behaviour could be engaged in as a form of role play. But assuming that a woman wants you to kiss her or touch her or insert an object in her body is really wrong and does not justify lack of consent. This "you know you want it" kind of crap is really effed up. Lots of rape victims quote their rapists saying it. It's a really misogynist mentality.

Do you have evidence that proves that "a lot" of women want the traditional role? And by women, I do not only mean cis gendered women. Or is this just your assumption about what women want?

I don't need to prove anything as obvious as that a lot of women still prefer traditional sex roles. They prefer to stay home and raise children and be a housewife. From your attitudes, clearly you don't run in those circles, but why not drop in on a church on Sunday and ask how many of the moms there would rather be doing something else.

Those same women probably read the bodice-ripper novels and feel a thrill when the male star steals a kiss from the female star.

I don't need to prove anything so obvious. Don't be silly,

Yes, some women also like being slapped around and chocked in sex. That does not mean that you can do it to every woman (or man or queer folk) just because some like it... especially NOT without consent.

Strawman! I never said anything about it being okay to go around choking women just because some women like it.

Again, your argument is not very strong there. Also, you continue to view sex in a heterosexual perspective, and that's not how sex always happens.

I presented no argument. I pointed out a fact.

Not to mention, this sort of thing is socialized in women from our loverly misogynistic culture (which blatantly promotes rape and wins an oscar for it). Lots of women love their physical abusers to death, just because women love them, that does not make it okay. Some porn stars actually come out and say they love rape, that still does not make it okay. Lots of people love sick things, that does not justify doing sick things to people.

One of the easiest ways to dehumanize others is to claim that their opinions don't really belong to them, but rather come from their oppressive overlords who have brainwashed them into believing something you disagree with.

If a woman does prefer such things, it should be communicated between the partners before hand and discussed. Then the "stolen kiss" kind of behaviour could be engaged in as a form of role play. But assuming that a woman wants you to kiss her or touch her or insert an object in her body is really wrong and does not justify lack of consent. This "you know you want it" kind of crap is really effed up. Lots of rape victims quote their rapists saying it. It's a really misogynist mentality.

I'm not arguing that the rapists are right, but that the current realities of sexual/dating relationships are quite a bit more vague than you are pretending, and that a lot of consent is actually implicit rather than explicit.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but the idea that explicit consent is always needed is an opinion, not a fact. Ethical statemeents express attitudes, not facts.

I can tell you something that I think is a fact and that is that the guy who goes ahead full bore despite rather obviously sincere protests isn't listening to you any more than he's listening to his protesting victim.

I did come to a similar conclusion after talking with belle. As i posted a bit earlier to Belle.

"I still think it is an unjust law, but i guess i can accept it is unjust because it is trying to counteract an even greater injustice. Namely the number of woman who are raped but where the rapist can not really be charged for anything due to the difficulty of prosecuting these sort of crimes."

As you must admit that this ambiguous law can be ,and probably has been, used to falsely accuse men in some cases . But the fact remains that even with this law there are tons more woman who are raped and their rapist gets away with it.